Canberra light rail: Development applications approved in 'b

Canberra / ACT Transport Discussion - Where the ACTION is

Moderator: Busnerd

Rclasstramcar
Posts: 1318
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:36 pm
Favourite Vehicle: 1955 Morris Minor-1961 Hillman
Location: I'm not sure

Canberra light rail: Development applications approved in 'b

Post by Rclasstramcar »

"Canberra's light rail project has cleared a major planning hurdle, with development applications now approved for the link from Gungahlin to the city, and a possible link between the city and Russell.

Construction on the Gungahlin line is scheduled to start next year - but the project's future is still unclear, as the Canberra Liberals have promised to axe it if they win next October's ACT election.

Capital Metro Minister Simon Corbell said the approvals were a "big step forward" for the project.

He said the Environment and Planning Directorate received 22 submissions from the public during the consultation process.

"The directorate has considered all submissions in making their decision to approve the DAs," he said.

Mr Corbell said getting an approval for the optional Russell extension meant the ACT Government was in the best position possible if it decided to go ahead with the project.

He said the proposed Russell extension had received strong support from the local business industry and the ACT community.

"From Russell we would be perfectly placed to extend the light rail network to other key parts of our city, including the airport, the parliamentary triangle and other destinations south of the lake," Mr Corbell said.

The light rail project still needs development approval from federal planners, for the sections to be built on national land, which are controlled by the National Capital Authority (NCA).

"Approval for parts of the project on land that falls under the National Capital Plan, such as parts of Northbourne Avenue and Constitution Avenue, will be lodged with the NCA in coming months," he said.

Earlier this month the Canberra Liberals released their own alternative vision for the future of public transport in the ACT.

The options paper put forward outlined three alternatives to light rail for Northbourne Avenue, with buses either travelling in a dedicated lane in the centre median or through priority lanes at major intersections between Antill Street and Barry Drive.

"The Government did a deal with the Greens in order to get light rail off the ground, but that's not going to be the genesis of our transport planning," Opposition transport spokesman Alistair Coe said at the time.

"Our transport planning is going to be based on genuine options, genuine cost-benefit analysis and genuine consultation with the community."

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-22/c ... ed/7047422

Ben
Return Sydney's trams
Vote Morrison and his Government out this election.
JAN 26-INVASION DAY
tonyp
Posts: 12348
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am

Re: Canberra light rail: Development applications approved i

Post by tonyp »

The Liberals have brought out an alternative proposal to the light rail:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-new ... ntpvt.html

It includes this artwork of a RHD European-style 100% low floor, multi entry MB Citaro artic:

Image

The drawings look very professional. Anybody have any idea of who authored them and if MB had anything to do with it? There is currently a rigid MB Citaro on demonstration in Brisbane.
User avatar
PaxInfo
Posts: 994
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 9:05 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Canberra light rail: Development applications approved i

Post by PaxInfo »

tonyp wrote:The Liberals have brought out an alternative proposal to the light rail:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-new ... ntpvt.html
Some quick thoughts:

The good: 1. Same routes 7 days/week. 2. More Rapid routes. 3. Reducing circuitous bus routes. 4. Reintroduction of after 10pm service (Thurs Fri Sat only) 5. Simple route numbers. 6. A political party using frequency as a selling point.

The bad/doubtful: 1. Weekend frequency of Rapid routes a mix of 15 & 20 min making connections unpredictable. 2. Patronage on some routes may not justify frequent service (eg south-east part of Route 5 in middle of day) 3. Some of their long peak express routes may have poor boardings per kilometre, especially when there will be no disincentives to driving - to quote: "We will not try to force patronage growth by making it harder to drive a car" 4. Apparently no improvement to weekday local routes where service will remain every 30 - 120 min.

The impossible: 1. 'We will keep every bus stop' vs 'reducing number of circuitous bus routes'

The interesting

Take this quote from the policy: "By placing the passenger experience at the centre of decision making".

Compare with: "Key to our success will be putting customers at the centre of our decision making process" from http://www.transdev.com.au/index.php?ma ... eturnid=36

The new Rapid routes will carry high costs, and the claim that no bus stop will be lost means they can't rationalise existing routes to offset some of this. They may see a shift to a private contract or franchise as a way to release funds for improvements if ACTION's existing cost structure is considered too high. I wouldn't be surprised if potential private operators have already been consulted, with some of the language flowing through to the policy document.

Past record

The proponents of the above policy presided over the 1996 service cuts from which the ACTION network never really recovered (the 1998 network was a short blip, followed by a resumption of the pattern of cutting). In the late 1980s/early 1990s most areas had routes every 15 min peak / 30 min offpeak. That had fallen to 30 min peak / 60 min peak (admittedly over a larger area) by the late '90s. Plus many regular routes were discontinued in favour of separate weekend / night bus routes. Although to their credit they largely retained after 10 pm service (this was severely cut much more recently under the current government).
Are you being served? Service aspects of public transport in Melbourne http://melbourneontransit.blogspot.com & MelbOnTransit on Twitter.
User avatar
Bus 400
Posts: 984
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:23 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Canberra light rail: Development applications approved i

Post by Bus 400 »

tonyp wrote:The drawings look very professional. Anybody have any idea of who authored them and if MB had anything to do with it? There is currently a rigid MB Citaro on demonstration in Brisbane.
In the pdf file, it mentions the drawings were provided by MB.
tonyp
Posts: 12348
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am

Re: Canberra light rail: Development applications approved i

Post by tonyp »

Bus 400 wrote:
In the pdf file, it mentions the drawings were provided by MB.
So I wonder what would have triggered MB to do such detailed work on a bus concept specifically for Canberra? The Liberal party wouldn't have the professional knowledge to go into such detail, unless they were advised by somebody in the anti-tram camp with the technical and operational knowledge. Or could it have come via ACTION?

MB from their European experience would know how to present a bus that can do the work of a small tram (this type of bus is a standard citybus in Europe), but in this case there must have been some technically informed link-up with somebody in Canberra. To date, a 100% low floor chassis that can take a door behind the rear axle in RHD (as opposed to LHD) is practically non-existent as, so far, there has been no demand for the concept in LHD markets. This is more significant than meets the eye.
gld59
Posts: 1432
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 6:30 pm
Location: Canberra

Re: Canberra light rail: Development applications approved i

Post by gld59 »

tonyp wrote:So I wonder what would have triggered MB to do such detailed work on a bus concept specifically for Canberra?
I'm thinking there are literally two layers going on there -
1. the RHD-appropriate layout, which would be suitable for any RHD market, and
2. the Canberra-specific livery.
If MB have any sense, number 2 is a readily replaceable layer in the graphics image file.

gld
tonyp
Posts: 12348
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am

Re: Canberra light rail: Development applications approved i

Post by tonyp »

It looks like the progress of the tram project is not going to be politically impeded thank goodness.
Roderick Smith
Posts: 1321
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 8:44 pm

Re: Canberra light rail, property values

Post by Roderick Smith »

Roderick.

Canberra’s light rail could drive up property values along tram line May 18, 2016.
A number of suburbs set to reap the benefits of Canberra’s light rail route have already experienced a spike in value.
The ACT government’s Capital Metro line from Gungahlin Town Centre to the city is expected to drive more buyers to properties along the transport corridor and potentially boost home values, experts say.
This includes commercial real estate in the inner north, with the planned first route already enticing possible buyers and tenants.
Last month the ACT government signed the $710-million light rail contract with Pacific Partnerships-led consortium Canberra Metro to build and operate the tramline.
Harrison, Franklin, Watson and Downer have experienced a spike in their median home values since the business case for the project was approved by the government in 2014 – and they are set to record further growth.
The four suburbs are among those along the corridor furthest from the city and without major transport hubs, such as in Gungahlin or Dickson.
Harrison’s median house and unit value has surged by almost 40 per cent from $400,000 in 2014 to $557,000 in 2015. Six months into 2016 the median value is at $608,500, according to Allhomes data.
Similarly, Franklin’s median home value has increased from $409,000 in 2014 to $419,000 in 2015, sitting at $433,950 as of June, 2016.
By 2020 the suburb’s median is expected to hit $489,566, an almost 13 per cent jump in value, based on the compound annual growth rate drawn from the past four years.
Forecasting Harrison’s growth is more difficult due to fluctuating house prices over this period however, the same method places its median at $774,572 by 2018.
Both suburbs have undergone accelerating development in the past few years with a surge in the number of apartments built along Flemington Road.
Further south, Watson’s median has jumped 12 per cent from $545,000 in 2014 to $612,000 as of June, 2016. Downer’s median has also increased by 12 per cent from $607,500 to $680,000 over the same period.
Watson could jump to $816,502 in four years, while Downer could reach $867,470, based on the rate of compound annual growth.
Domain chief economist Andrew Wilson said the introduction of light rail would “absolutely” impact on the value of homes close to the public transport corridor.
While it was difficult to quantify the exact impact on house prices at this stage, he said the introduction of light rail would “only be positive for the local housing market”.
“You’re always likely to have an increase in buyers, rather than a decrease, in areas with high levels of transport infrastructure,” he said.
Dr Wilson cited the introduction of light rail in Western Sydney as a good comparison, describing it as a positive addition to a booming suburban area.
In the United States, land values within 800 metres of mass transit have risen by as much as 120 per cent, according to a paper released in 2010 by the lobby group the Tourism and Transport Forum.
Allhomes data analyst Nicola Powell said improvements to public transport elsewhere had increased the value of nearby land.
While areas like Gungahlin did not experience the kind of congestion problems that hamper traffic flow in some other Australian cities like Sydney, light rail could push up prices.
“I do think we will see an increase in demand and that might translate to property price growth in that area,” she said
“Wherever the [tram] stops are, we’re likely see a flow-on effect in terms of the economic benefit and increasing demand for property in the area.”
Dr Powell expected increasing value around Flemington Road – home to four proposed tram stops –-if demand for property in the area kept pace with residential development.
She also expected the eventual sale of land in the new suburb of Kenny, east of Mitchell and next to the light rail route, to come with a hefty price tag.
JLL’s ACT Head of Sales and Investments, Michael Heather said although it was too early to analyse the sale price of commercial buildings along the light rail corridor – such as the $29.2 million sale of 73 Northbourne Avenue to a Melbourne investor in April – Capital Metro had piqued the interest of buyers.
The seven-storey building sold for $17 million in 2004, according to Allhomes data, representing a jump of almost $13 million over 12 years.
Details of CBRE’s sale of a large slice of prime real estate at 92 Northbourne Avenue, right on the Elouera Street tram stop, are imminent and the site should fetch more than $20 million.
Meanwhile, the developer behind Midtown this week described the light project as a “catalyst” for the mixed-use precinct, which will be located next to the Macarthur Avenue tram stop.
Further south, the relocation of ANU students from Fenner Hall in 2018, the same year stage one of the light rail project is expected to be completed, could open up a prime development opportunity.
“When dealing with Melbourne and Sydney-based groups, particularly because they see light rail or proposed light rail in their own cities, it is relevant and it is topical,” Mr Heather said.
“The general consensus is it will have a positive impact on the Canberra property market and values and future leases of office assets situated on the light rail route.”
Mr Heather said the city’s diminishing reliance on cars as a result of light rail could also spark a movement of workers from the city’s “fringe” areas, such as Deakin and Fyshwick, to Northbourne Avenue.
“Particularly as tenants come to the end of leases expiring in the next two to three years during first phase of the Capital Metro project,” he said.
“They may look at moving into city given the employee benefit of travelling to work via the public transport system produced by the light rail project.”
He expected private development to also accelerate near the light rail terminals, activating Northbourne Avenue at a street level.
Light rail has been a key policy among ACT Labor and the ACT Greens since the last territory election four years ago.
Construction is scheduled to begin midway through this year and trams are expected to begin taking passengers in early 2019.
The ACT Liberals have been strongly opposed to light rail, promising to scrap the project if elected to office after Canberrans head to the polls in October.
How we calculated the figures:
To forecast, we calculated the compound annual growth rate based on the median home value of each suburb over the past four years.
The compound annual growth rate looks at the average annual change over a set period of years to determine a steady rate of growth.
It’s important to keep in mind this is based on historical data and that values, such as home values, might fluctuate in the future.
http://www.domain.com.au/news/canberras ... 617-gowyke
Attachments
160518-Melbourne'Age-Canberra'lightrail'houseprices.jpg
160518-Melbourne'Age-Canberra'lightrail'houseprices.jpg (291.91 KiB) Viewed 26266 times
Myrtone
Posts: 351
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:29 am

Re: Canberra light rail: Development applications approved i

Post by Myrtone »

I notice that the light rail line seems to run entirely in a median of a wide road. Is there are reason high platforms could not be used?
ajw373
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2004 6:10 pm
Location: London/Canberra

Re: Canberra light rail: Development applications approved i

Post by ajw373 »

Whats the point when low floor trams are now very much the norm? And what of future extensions?
User avatar
boronia
Posts: 21566
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:18 am
Favourite Vehicle: Ahrens Fox; GMC PD4107
Location: Sydney NSW

Re: Canberra light rail: Development applications approved i

Post by boronia »

High floor trams can use conventional bogies, thus providing a better ride, especially at speed. They can have better seating from a fully flat floor. A high platform in a street should take up no more width than a ground level platform; only a bit more length to accommodate a ramp.

Hong Kong LR is a good example of an efficient high floor operation.
Preserving fire service history
@ The Museum of Fire.
ajw373
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2004 6:10 pm
Location: London/Canberra

Re: Canberra light rail: Development applications approved i

Post by ajw373 »

All well and good 30 years ago when the Hong Kong light rail was built. But this is almost 2018 and low floor technology has come a long way which is why it is now the accepted norm.
User avatar
boronia
Posts: 21566
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:18 am
Favourite Vehicle: Ahrens Fox; GMC PD4107
Location: Sydney NSW

Re: Canberra light rail: Development applications approved i

Post by boronia »

The "modern" CAFs in Sydney still leave a lot to be desired. Poor seating, shake like crazy at speed.

Probably a necessity when they have to fit in with existing rolling stock/infrastructure, but a brand new system deserves better.
Preserving fire service history
@ The Museum of Fire.
tonyp
Posts: 12348
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am

Re: Canberra light rail: Development applications approved i

Post by tonyp »

Low-floor trams can be ordered with conventional bogies too (e.g. E class in Melbourne) and can have a good ride. It's just that a lot of agencies buy by price and of course you get what you pay for. The CAFs are typical of modern trams ordered to a price nowadays, a bit mediocre but OK, just like most buses here I guess! The main issue I see is that they have deleted doors from the standard specification which will be an issue for efficient loading and passenger exchange (as it is in Sydney) if the trams become heavily used. But that's a problem also shared with buses in Australia. That MB bus proposal shown above in this thread demonstrates a good door layout for a busy service with high turnover.

I think the ACT tram purchase is based on what they see NSW buying - it's a "me-too" purchase.

High platforms would be a disaster for accessibility and costly too. While you might be able to get away with them along an off-road reservation, they would be horrible to have in the street sections. There is absolutely no reason to have them nowadays with the advances in tram technology.
burrumbus
Posts: 2049
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:12 pm

Re: Canberra light rail: Development applications approved i

Post by burrumbus »

Will be interesting to see what patronage patterns emerge with this tram service,Clearly there will be single journeys from Gunghalin into Civicand vice versa,with several connecting bus routes at Gunghalin.There is certainly scope for usage to /from Gunghalin and to/from Civic from the various offices/commercial establishments along Nortbourne Avenue. That is very peak hour related Monday-Friday,as is much of the Canberra ACTION network.It will be very interesting to note passenger uptake of this service.
Myrtone
Posts: 351
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:29 am

Re: Canberra light rail: Development applications approved i

Post by Myrtone »

tonyp wrote:Low-floor trams can be ordered with conventional bogies too (e.g. E class in Melbourne) and can have a good ride. It's just that a lot of agencies buy by price and of course you get what you pay for. The CAFs are typical of modern trams ordered to a price nowadays, a bit mediocre but OK, just like most buses here I guess! The main issue I see is that they have deleted doors from the standard specification which will be an issue for efficient loading and passenger exchange (as it is in Sydney) if the trams become heavily used. But that's a problem also shared with buses in Australia. That MB bus proposal shown above in this thread demonstrates a good door layout for a busy service with high turnover.
The Flexities in Melbourne do have pivoting bogies, but they are not quite classic ones. For example, they are a lower profile and the motors are on the outside.
tonyp wrote:I think the ACT tram purchase is based on what they see NSW buying - it's a "me-too" purchase.
Could the Canberra ones share a supply of spare parts with the Sydney ones? Would a pivoting bogie design really do (a lot) better on a new system?
tonyp wrote:High platforms would be a disaster for accessibility and costly too. While you might be able to get away with them along an off-road reservation, they would be horrible to have in the street sections. There is absolutely no reason to have them nowadays with the advances in tram technology.
Do you mean locations in narrower streets where stops need to be closer to building entrances? One may be able to get away with them in wide streets too. In spite of advances in tram technology, high platfroms could have their place on reserve based systems where they will work in all locations.
Low floor trams were originally developed for systems where high platforms aren't possible in all locations.* And light rail with high platforms throughout must have been able to avoid the problem that low floor models were designed to solve. So I wonder if there may still be room for high platform light rail in this country?

*Low floor buses were developed to solve essentially the same problem, I think it's greater for buses because they tend to stop next to the kerb, and thus near building entrances, even on wider roads.
Last edited by Myrtone on Thu Dec 28, 2017 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ajw373
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2004 6:10 pm
Location: London/Canberra

Re: Canberra light rail: Development applications approved i

Post by ajw373 »

burrumbus wrote:Will be interesting to see what patronage patterns emerge with this tram service,Clearly there will be single journeys from Gunghalin into Civicand vice versa,with several connecting bus routes at Gunghalin.There is certainly scope for usage to /from Gunghalin and to/from Civic from the various offices/commercial establishments along Nortbourne Avenue. That is very peak hour related Monday-Friday,as is much of the Canberra ACTION network.It will be very interesting to note passenger uptake of this service.
The interesting thing about this corridor from my own observations is during the peak I often see buses with Bus Full Signs, which is not something I have seen elsewhere. And during the day off peaks the loadings are still very healthy. Just last week I caught a 200 at 1pm from the City to Gungahlin, the bus was an artic and it was full with standing passengers. The other thing to bear in mind is the Flemmington Road corridor has the highest housing density in the whole of Canberra.

Have a look the the territory plan in the link below. Even without zooming Flemmington Road and Northborne Ave standout with splashes of blue, pink and red indictaing high density. Right along the route it is high and the streets just behind medium.

http://app.actmapi.act.gov.au/actmapi/i ... ?viewer=tp
burrumbus
Posts: 2049
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:12 pm

Re: Canberra light rail: Development applications approved i

Post by burrumbus »

Thanks for the extra info and map ajw373.The areas along the tram route are very PT friendly going by that map and your observations.Hopefully that will translate through into great patronage for the tram.I've also noticed that the routes from Civic to Hackett and Watson are well patronised ,especially at peak with standing loads.
User avatar
boronia
Posts: 21566
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:18 am
Favourite Vehicle: Ahrens Fox; GMC PD4107
Location: Sydney NSW

Re: Canberra light rail: Development applications approved i

Post by boronia »

I noticed a report this morning from a Gold Coast correspondent that the speed limit on the new GCLR2, on open right of way, has suddenly been reduced from 70 to 60, within a week of opening. It wasn't mentioned, but I wonder if it has to do with the "performance" of the trams above this new limit?
Preserving fire service history
@ The Museum of Fire.
tonyp
Posts: 12348
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am

Re: Canberra light rail: Development applications approved i

Post by tonyp »

boronia wrote:I noticed a report this morning from a Gold Coast correspondent that the speed limit on the new GCLR2, on open right of way, has suddenly been reduced from 70 to 60, within a week of opening. It wasn't mentioned, but I wonder if it has to do with the "performance" of the trams above this new limit?
I'm sure that was just for an approach to Parkwood, plus there are drops to 60 approaching the blind crests along the line. I think 70 still prevails along much of the extension.
tonyp
Posts: 12348
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am

Re: Canberra light rail: Development applications approved i

Post by tonyp »

ajw373 wrote: The interesting thing about this corridor from my own observations is during the peak I often see buses with Bus Full Signs, which is not something I have seen elsewhere.
Try the Gong Shuttle when they put a single-door bus on the service and the driver considers it full at about a dozen standees, above which the bus presumably ceases to be functional.
moa999
Posts: 2923
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 3:12 pm

Re: Canberra light rail: Development applications approved i

Post by moa999 »

tonyp wrote: The main issue I see is that they have deleted doors from the standard specification which will be an issue for efficient loading and passenger exchange (as it is in Sydney) if the trams become heavily used..
I think the single door in the end cars is CAF standard, although as shown by the Budapest and new Luxembourg trams double doors are possible.
tonyp
Posts: 12348
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am

Re: Canberra light rail: Development applications approved i

Post by tonyp »

moa999 wrote:
I think the single door in the end cars is CAF standard, although as shown by the Budapest and new Luxembourg trams double doors are possible.
That's an extra advantage, but the main issue is not having two sets of double doors per suspended module (which CAF typically supplies unless the client has deleted doors from the specification). Ideally, a high-turnover vehicle should have one double door per 5 metres of length, preferably evenly-spaced. The Canberra, Newcastle and IWLR CAF trams only have the equivalent of one double door per 10 metres. That now causes dwell and loading problems on IWLR. The Alstom trams for CSELR fortunately don't have doors deleted from the standard specification and have a full complement of a double door per 5 metres.
1of55
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 10:08 pm

Re: Canberra light rail: Development applications approved i

Post by 1of55 »

It is incorrect to say that that the Gold Coast trams have had their maximum speed reduced from 70 to 60 on the open right of way sections. The 70 speed restriction signs are in place in sections between all 3 stations on the Helensvale extension and the trams do in fact attain 70klm/hour without shaking like crazy at this speed. They comfortably do 66 over the curved tram bridge over Smith Street on the stage 1 section.
tonyp
Posts: 12348
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:31 am

Re: Canberra light rail: Development applications approved i

Post by tonyp »

Canberra motorists getting in early and not waiting for the tram to open like in Gold Coast etc:

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/nation ... 4zf2p.html

I guess motorists have to start practising.
Post Reply

Return to “Discussion - Canberra / ACT”